RENATO S. GATBONTON vs.

NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION
[G.R. NO. 146779 January 23, 2006]
FACTS:
Petitioner Renato S. Gatbonton is an associate professor of
respondent Mapua Institute of Technology (MIT), Faculty of
Civil Engineering. Some time in November 1998, a civil
engineering student of respondent MIT filed a lettercomplaint against petitioner for unfair/unjust grading system,
sexual harassment and conduct unbecoming of an
academician. Pending investigation of the complaint,
respondent MIT, through its Committee on Decorum and
Investigation placed petitioner under a 30-day preventive
suspension effective January 11, 1999. The committee
believed that petitioners continued stay during the
investigation affects his performance as a faculty member, as
well as the students learning; and that the suspension will
allow petitioner to prepare himself for the investigation and
will prevent his influences to other members of the
community. Thus, petitioner filed with the NLRC a complaint
for illegal suspension, damages and attorneys fees.
Petitioner questioned the validity of the administrative
proceedings with the Regional Trial Court of Manila in a
petition for certiorari but the case was terminated on May 21,
1999 when the parties entered into a compromise agreement
wherein respondent MIT agreed to publish in the school organ
the rules and regulations implementing R.A. No. 7877 or the
Anti-Sexual Harassment Act; disregard the previous
administrative
proceedings
and
conduct
anew
an
investigation on the charges against petitioner. Petitioner
agreed to recognize the validity of the published rules and
regulations, as well as the authority of respondent to
investigate, hear and decide the administrative case against
him.
Labor Arbiter: 30-day preventive suspension is illegal
and directed MIT to pay his wages during the said
period
NLRC: set aside the Labor Arbiters decision

CA on special civil action for certiorari: affirming the

NLRC
Issues:
1. Whether Mapuas Rules and Regulations is effective as
of January 11, 1999 when it was published only on
February 23, 1999 (persons)
2. W/N there is a valid justification for the 30-day
preventive suspension under the Labor Code (labor)
3. Whether damages should be awarded
Held:
Petition is partially granted. CA, NLRC set aside and Labors
Arbiter reinstated
1.
NO. R.A. No. 7877 imposed the duty on educational or
training institutions to "promulgate rules and regulations in
consultation with and jointly approved by the employees or
students or trainees, through their duly designated
representatives, prescribing the procedures for the
investigation of sexual harassment cases and the
administrative sanctions therefor.

Taada vs. Tuvera:

all statutes, including those of local application and
private laws shall be published as a condition for their
effectivity is fixed by the legislative.(especially penal
laws)
Covered by this rule are presidential decrees and
executive orders promulgated by the President in the
exercise of legislative powers whenever the same are
validly delegated by the legislature or, at present,
directly conferred by the Constitution. Administrative
rules and regulations must also be published if their
purpose is to enforce or implement existing law
pursuant also to a valid delegation.

Publication must be in full or it is no publication at all since

its purpose is to inform the public of the contents of the laws.

Mapua Rules is one of those issuances that should be

published for its effectivity, since its purpose is to enforce
and implement R.A. No. 7877, which is a law of general
application. Mapua Rules Section 3 Rule IV (Administrative
Provisions) states that it shall take effect 15 days after
publication by the committee.
2.
NO. Preventive suspension is a disciplinary measure for
the protection of the companys property pending
investigation of any alleged malfeasance or misfeasance
committed by the employee. The employer may place the
worker concerned under preventive suspension if his
continued employment poses a serious and imminent threat
to the life or property of the employer or of his co-workers.
However, when it is determined that there is no sufficient
basis to justify an employees preventive suspension, the
latter is entitled to the payment of salaries during the time of
preventive suspension. Section 8, Rule XXIII, Book V of the

Ominibus Rules, there is no valid justification. It does not

show that evidence of petitioners guilt is strong and that the
school head is morally convinced that petitioners continued
stay during the period of investigation constitutes a
distraction to the normal operations of the institution; or that
petitioner poses a risk or danger to the life or property of the
other members of the educational community
3.
No. While petitioners preventive suspension may have
been unjustified, this does not automatically mean that he is
entitled to moral or other damages.
There is no showing of bad faith or in a wanton or fraudulent
manner in preventively suspending petitioner.